The "Union" Myth

Now let me get this straight - unions are good, they "rise up" middle class workers - which middle class workers? Unions argue that they need collective bargaining to increase the pay and benefits for workers. The operative word here is "collective". Maybe in the short term that is the case but in the long term unionism breeds mediocrity and individual incentive and lines the pockets of union organizers who spend union money trying to get Democrats elected to protect their power base.

Just as the Democrats (Progressives) are champions of "income redistribution", I contend that unionization is nothing more than redistribution of performance and productivity. Let's look at two hypothetical examples - two high schools:

Let's call the first high school 'Strickland High'. Teachers are non-unionized and they keep their job based strictly on their performance. The better performing teachers get the highest pay.

Let's call the second high school 'Obama High'. The teachers are unionized, they get paid strictly based on their seniority not their performance, and after a few years they get tenure and cannot be fired.

I believe that in any group of teachers, some will be above average, some will be below average, but there will probably be one great teacher and one complete loser. At Strickland High, before long the loser will be fired and replaced with a better teacher and the great teacher will get a raise in pay thus increasing the overall performance and morale at the school.

At Obama High the union will protect all the teachers' jobs, so the "loser" will quickly become a "union man" knowing that his job is secure and his pay and benefits are the same as everyone else with his seniority. But over time a natural thing starts happening at Obama High. The great teacher gets frustrated because she busts her butt trying to be the best teacher, while getting little more recognition than the loser.

In the meantime Strickland High, not satisfied with another one of their low performing teachers, fires him and hires the frustrated "great teacher" from Obama High resulting in further increasing the performance of the teachers group at Strickland High and at the same time lowering the performance of the unionized teachers group at Obama High.

So as this pattern continues over time, the performance of the teachers group at Strickland High continues to improve, the performance of the students continues to improve, and the parents are waiting in line to get their children enrolled. While at the same time the unionized, tenured teachers at Obama High plug along, knowing their job is secure and they cannot be fired. While at the same time, the high performers at Obama High get frustrated and leave to work in an environment like Strickland High where individual performance is rewarded.

Obama High then slowly becomes one of our typical low performing schools with teachers ready to protest if anyone threatens their situation, while the parents of the Obama High students complain and wonder why their kids under-perform, fail in science and math, and can hardly read or write a proper sentence.

Which school system do you want your children to attend?